UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA   PUBLICATIONS 

COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BARLEY  ON  THE 
MILK  SECRETION  OF  COWS 


BY 

F.  W.  WOLL  AND  E.  C.  VOORHIES 


BULLETIN  No.  305 

February,  1919 


UNIVERSITY   OF  CALIFORNIA   PRESS 

BERKELEY 

1919 


EXPEKIMENT  STATION  STAFF 

HEADS   OF   DIVISIONS 

Thomas  Forsyth  Hunt,  Director. 
Edward  J.  Wickson,  Horticulture   (Emeritus). 

Herbert  J.  Webber,  Director  Citrus  Experiment  Station;  Plant  Breeding. 
Hubert  E.  Van  Norman,  Vice-Director;  Dairy  Management. 
William  A.  Setchell,  Botany. 
Myer  E.  Jaffa,  Nutrition. 
Charles  W.  Woodworth,  Entomology. 
Ealph  E.  Smith,  Plant  Pathology. 
J.  Eliot  Coit,  Citriculture. 
John  W.  Gilmore,  Agronomy. 
Charles  F.  Shaw,  Soil  Technology. 
John  W.  Gregg,  Landscape  Gardening  and  Floriculture. 
Frederic  T.  Bioletti,  Viticulture  and  Enology. 
Warren  T.  Clarke,  Agricultural  Extension. 
John  S.  Burd,  Agricultural  Chemistry. 
Charles  B.  Lipman,  Soil  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology. 
Clarence  M.  Haring,  Veterinary  Science  and  Bacteriology. 
Ernest  B.  Babcock,  Genetics. 
Gordon  H.  True,  Animal  Husbandry. 
James  T.  Barrett,  Plant  Pathology. 
Fritz  W.  Woll,  Animal  Nutrition. 
Walter  Mulford,  Forestry. 
W.  P.  Kelley,  Agricultural  Chemistry. 
H.  J.  Quayle,  Entomology. 
Elwood  Mead,  Rural  Institutions. 
J.  B.  Davidson,  Agricultural  Engineering. 
H.  S.  Reed,  Plant  Physiology. 
D.  T.  Mason,  Forestry. 
C.  L.  Roadhouse,  Dairy  Industry, 
t  Frank  Adams,  Irrigation  Investigations. 
J.  C.  Whitten,  Pomology. 
F.  L.  Griffen,  Agricultural  Education. 
John  E.  Dougherty,  Poultry  Husbandry. 
S.  S.  Rogers,  Olericulture. 
J.  G.  Moodey,  Assistant  to  the  Director. 
Mrs.  D.  L.  Bunnell,  Librarian. 

DIVISION  OF  ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 

Gordon  H.  True  E.  C.  Voorhies 

F.  W.  Woll  JC.  V.  Castle 

J.  I.  Thompson  Cora  J.  Hill 


t  In  cooperation  with  Office  of  Public  Roads  and  Rural  Engineering,  U.   S. 
Department  of  Agriculture. 
t  In  military  service. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BARLEY  ON  THE  MILK 

SECRETION  OF  COWS 

By  F.  W.  WOLL  and  E.  C.  VOOEHIES 


Barley  is  one  of  the  standard  feeds  for  horses,  cattle,  hogs  and 
sheep  in  this  state,  as  in  most  of  the  Western  states,  and  is  also 
frequently  used  as  a  part  of  the  grain  rations  for  dairy  cattle  and 
poultry.  There  is  a  certain  prejudice  against  the  use  of  this  cereal 
for  milch  cows  among  some  dairy  farmers,  who  believe  that  it  has  a 
tendency  to  dry  up  the  cows,  but  the  nutritive  effect  of  the  cereal  and 
its  high  value  for  stock  feeding  are  otherwise  generally  recognized  by 
our  farmers.  The  influence  of  barley  on  the  milk  secretion  of  cows 
in  the  University  dairy  herd  has  been  studied  during  the  past  few 
years  and  the  results  of  this  investigation  are  given  in  the  following 
pages. 

EXPERIMENTS   WITH    GRADE    HOLSTEIN 

In  taking  up  this  question  for  study,  it  was  decided  to  feed  barley 
as  the  sole  concentrate  to  a  good  type  of  a  dairy  cow  for  several  lacta- 
tion periods,  in  addition  to  alfalfa  hay  or  alfalfa  and  silage.  The 
plan  was  to  feed  barley  heavily  during  this  time,  up  to  the  limit  of 
the  cow's  acceptance,  so  as  to  secure  as  conclusive  evidence  as  possible 
with  regard  to  the  cumulative  effect  of  this  cereal  and  this  method  of 
feeding  on  the  milk  flow.  The  cow  selected  for  this  experiment,  a 
grade  Holstein  named  Hannah,  had  been  in  the  University  dairy 
herd  for  a  year  previous  to  the  trial.  She  was  purchased  by  the 
University  in  July,  1913,  was  about  four  years  old  at  that  time,  and 
weighed  slightly  over  1200  pounds.  She  dropped  a  bull  calf  on 
July  16,  shortly  after  her  arrival  in  the  herd.  Hannah  is  a  strong, 
healthy  animal ;  she  has  always  been  in  the  best  of  health  and  con- 
dition while  in  the  herd,  and  has  repeatedly  been  placed  on  experi- 
ments which  did  not  interfere  with  that  here  outlined.  Her  feed 
record  for  the  year  prior  to  the  barley  feeding  is  complete  up  to 
January  1,  1914,  so  far  as  kinds  of  feeds  are  concerned.  Since  that 
time,  the  amounts  of  feed  eaten  are  known  for  her  as  well  as  all  other 
cows  in  the  University  dairy  herd. 


326 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 


The  milk  yielded  by  the  cow  was  weighed  throughout  the  lactation 
period,  and  weekly  composite  samples  of  the  milk  were  taken  and 
tested  for  total  solids  and  butterfat.  The  effect  of  the  grain  feeding 
on  the  body  condition  and  the  general  health  of  the  cow  was  also  care- 
fully noted.  Table  I  shows  the  production  and  the  feed  consumed  by 
this  cow  during  five  consecutive  lactation  periods,  1913-18.  During 
the  middle  three  years,  1914—17,  she  was  fed  barley  as  a  sole  concen- 
trate, and  during  the  first  and  the  last  year  of  the  trial  mixtures  of 
common  grain  feeds,  the  roughage  fed  throughout  the  trial  being 
alfalfa  hay  or  green  alfalfa,  and  Indian  corn  or  sorghum  silage. 


TABLE 

Ia 

Production  of  Hannah,  1913- 

-18 

Year 

Dates 
of  calving 

Days 
in  milk 

Lbs. 
milk 

Lbs. 
butterfat 

Per  cent 
butterfat 

Ave. 
body 

weight 
lbs. 

Character 

of 
grain  feed 

1913-14 

July    16/13 

274 

8,246.2 

269.11 

3.27 

1,231 

Mixed 

1914-15 

May    27, '14 

350 

12,806.1 

432.77 

3.37 

1,276 

Barley 

1915-16 

June  30/15 

308 

11,859.5 

373.11 

3.15 

1,349 

Barley 

1916-17 

June  14,  '16 

323 

9,605.4 

315.74 

3.29 

1,439 

Barley 

1917-18 

July    23/17 

317 

9,535.5 

325.06 

3.41 

1,445 

Mixed 

TABLE  Is 

Feed  Consumption  by  Hannah  per  Lactation  Period,  in  Lbs. 


Feeds 

Alfalfa  hay  

Alfalfa,  green  

Indian  corn,  green 

Indian  corn,  silage 

Sorghum  silage  

Sudan  grass  silage 

Barley    

Wheat  bran  

Oats    

Cocoanut  meal  

Dried  beet  pulp 

Cottonseed  meal  

Total  concentrates  

Average   daily   grain 

Feed  units,  roughage .... 
Feed  units,  concentrates 
Total  feed  units 


1913-14*  1914-15   1915-16   1916-17 


4,674 
6,836 
317 
1,570 
3,437 

3,059 


3,059 
8.7 
4,177 
3,059 
7,236 


4,551 

5,331 

359 

6,537 


2,917 
9.5 
4,156 
2,917 
7,073 


5,482 
2,378 

6,564 


650 

2,917    2,350 


2350 
7.3 
4,283 
2,350 
6,633 


1917-1* 

4931 

855 

195 

8,591 

1,587 


483 

292 
24 

336 

1,015 

46 

2,917 

6.9 
4,308 
2,197 
6,505 


Average 

1914-17 

(barley 

only) 


2,775 
8.5 
4,205 
2,775 
6,980 


*  Amounts  of  feed  eaten  known  only  during  latter  half  of  lactation  period; 
fed  alfalfa  (green  or  hay),  corn  silage  and  concentrates  (barley,  oats,  bran, 
linseed  meal,  cocoanut  meal,  in  varying  mixtures)   during  the  year. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BARLEY  ON  THE  MILK  SECRETION  OF   COWS      327 

The  table  shows  the  dates  of  freshening  during  the  progress  of 
the  experiment ;  days  in  milk  for  each  lactation  period ;  production  of 
milk  and  butterfat,  with  average  percent  of  fat,  body  weight,  and 
feed  consumed.  It  will  be  seen  that  Hannah's  production  during  the 
first  lactation  period  on  barley  was  increased  by  about  4560  pounds 
of  milk  and  164  pounds  of  butterfat  over  that  of  the  preceding  period 
— an  increase  of  55  per  cent  and  61  per  cent,  for  milk  and  butterfat 
respectively.  This  increase  was  of  course  primarily  due  to  the  heavy 
grain  feeding  practiced  during  this  year.  Up  to  March,  1914,  Hannah 
received  rough  feeds  only,  alfalfa  hay  and  corn  silage,  to  which  a  daily 
allowance  of  five  pounds  of  mixed  grain  feeds  (barley,  oats,  linseed 
meal  and  cocoanut  meal)  was  added  after  March  5.  During  the 
greater  portion  of  the  first  year  of  barley  feeding,  on  the  other  hand, 
she  received  ten  pounds  of  barley  daily,  and  seven  to  eight  pounds 
during  the  last  four  months  of  the  lactation  period.  While  she  was 
offered  and  ate  as  much  as  fifteen  pounds  of  barley  daily  for  a  few 
weeks  during  the  following  lactation  period,  it  was  found  that  ten 
pounds  a  day  was  ordinarily  her  limit,  and  this  amount  was  rarely 
exceeded  even  at  the  flush  of  her  production  when  she  produced  over 
two  pounds  of  butterfat  daily.  She  remained  in  milk  considerably 
longer  this  lactation  period  than  during  the  preceding  year,  viz.,  350 
days,  and  her  body  weight  was,  on  the  average,  forty-five  pounds 
heavier  during  the  barley  feeding  than  while  on  mixed  grain  the 
preceding  period. 

During  the  following  two  lactation  periods  the  feeding  of  barley  as 
exclusive  grain  feed  was  continued;  the  amount  of  milk  produced 
during  these  two  periods  was  somewhat  lower  than  during  the  pre- 
ceding year,  but  considerably  above  the  yield  for  the  mixed  grain 
period,  and  the  same  holds  true  also  for  the  production  of  butterfat 
during  these  periods.  If  the  average  production  by  the  cow  during 
the  three  lactation  periods  when  she  was  fed  barley  as  sole  concentrate 
be  compared  with  the  corresponding  averages  for  the  preceding  and 
the  following  periods  when  mixed  grain  was  fed,  it  will  be  found  that 
her  milk  production  during  the  barley  periods  was  2533  pounds,  or 
28.5  per  cent,  higher  than  when  she  was  fed  mixed  grain,  and  her 
average  production  of  butterfat  was  increased  by  seventy-five  pounds, 
or  25.3  per  cent.  Her  lactation  periods  during  1914-17  were  thirty- 
one  days  (10  per  cent)  longer,  on  the  average,  than  during  the  mixed 
grain  feeding,  and  she  weighed  an  average  of  twenty-nine  pounds 
heavier  during  the  intermediate  periods  than  when  fed  mixed  grain 
rations. 

The  average  yields  of  butterfat  by  the  cow  for  each  day  in  milk 


328  UNIVERSITY  OP  CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 

during  the  five  lactation  periods,  1913-18,  were  .98,  1.23,  1.21,  .98, 
and  1.03  pounds,  the  average  for  the  barley  period  being  1.14  pounds, 
which  is  13  per  cent  above  the  average  for  the  mixed  grain  period. 
Since  the  amount  of  grain  and  roughage  eaten  during  the  first  lacta- 
tion period,  1913-14,  is  not  known,  no  definite  comparison  can  be 
made  between  the  feed  consumption  and  the  dairy  production  of  the 
cow  during  the  five-year  period.  However,  as  grain  was  fed  only 
during  the  latter  part  of  the  first  lactation  period,  the  amount  of 
mixed  grain  eaten,  and  the  total  or  daily  feed  consumption  must  have 
been  considerably  lower  this  period  than  during  the  first  year  of 
barley  feeding.  The  average  amount  of  barley  eaten  daily  for  the 
periods  1914-17  was  8.5  pounds,  against  6.9  pounds  of  mixed  grain 
the  following  year.  The  average  number  of  feed  units  in  the  barley 
rations  was  6980,  or  7.3  per  cent  above  that  furnished  in  the  last 
mixed  grain  period,  1917-18.  It  seems  evident,  therefore,  that  the 
increase  in  production  during  the  barley  periods,  as  compared  with 
the  yields  on  mixed  grain  feeding,  came  largely  as  a  result  of  the 
heavier  rations  fed,  especially  of  grain,  during  the  barley  periods. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  results  obtained  on  the  experiment  with 
this  cow  that  would  indicate  that  an  exclusive  or  even  a  heavy,  long- 
continued  feeding  of  barley  has  any  deleterious  influence  on  the  milk 
secretion  of  the  cow ;  on  the  contrary,  the  production  was  greatly 
increased  on  barley  feeding ;  her  lactation  periods  were  about  a  month 
longer,  on  the  average ;  she  weighed  heavier  when  fed  barley  than 
when  receiving  mixed-grain  rations,  and  she  was  in  perfect  health  and 
maintained  an  excellent  appetite  throughout  the  whole  feeding  period. 
The  effect  of  the  exclusive  barley  feeding  was  therefore  beneficial  in 
every  respect. 

EXPERIMENT  WITH  TWO   PURE-BRED   COWS 

Similar  data  to  those  given  in  the  preceding  pages  have  been 
obtained  during  the  past  three  years  for  complete  lactation  periods 
for  two  pure-bred  cows,  one  Jersey  and  one  Holstein,  and  for  a  con- 
siderable number  of  cows  for  a  fraction  of  a  lactation  period.  The 
experiments  with  the  former  cows  were  not  conducted  primarily  for 
the  purpose  of  trying  out  the  effect  of  exclusive  barley  feeding  on 
their  milk  production ;  the  cows  on  this  experiment  had  hardly  come 
up  to  the  expectations  of  this  class  of  dairy  animals  and  they  were 
changed  to  a  barley-alfalfa-silage  diet  to  ascertain  whether  this  would 
tend  to  render  them  less  profitable  dairy  producers  than  they  had 
proved  under  the  system  of  feeding  ordinarily  practiced  in  the  dairy 
herd. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BARLEY  ON  THE  MILK  SECRETION  OF   COWS       329 

The  cows  placed  on  this  experiment  were  Roxey  Mercedes  Queen  2d, 
144605  (Holstein)  and  University  Marigold,  282343  (Jersey). 

Roxey  was  purchased  by  the  University  in  1911  as  a  two-year-old ; 
she  produced  4694.5  pounds  of  milk  and  192.91  pounds  of  fat  (4.11 
per  cent)   during  her  first  year  in  the  University  dairy  herd;  her 

TABLE  IIa 

Production  of  Pure-bred  Cows  fed  Barley,  1915-17 


J.IU 

Dates 
Year                   of  calving 

Days 
in  milk 

Lbs. 
milk 

Lbs. 
butterfat 

Per  cent 
butterfat 

Ave. 

body       Character 
weight             of 
lbs.        grain  feed 

1913-14         Dec. 

23, '13 

351 

9,813.2 

380.25 

3.87 

1,280 

Mixed 

1915               Jan. 

8/15 

335 

7,736.9 

308.34 

3.98 

1,249 

Barley 

1916               Jan. 

1,'16* 

362 

9,027.2 

342.96 

3.80 

1338 

Mixed 

1917                Mar. 

3, '17 

270 

7,243.1 

296.28 

4.09 

1,361 

Mixed 

University  Marigold,  282343 

1914-15         Apr. 

28, '14 

462 

6,509.5 

356.38 

5.47 

883 

Mixed 

1915-16         Sept. 

19, '15 

315 

4,332.2 

252.80 

5.97 

911 

Barley 

1916-17         Aug. 

29, '16 

296 

4,197.7 

254.09 

6.05 

970 

Mixed 

*  Aborted. 

TABLE  IIb 

Feed  Consumption,  per  Lactation  Period,  in  Pounds 

Roxey 

K 

Marigold 

A 

1913-14 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1914-15      1915-16      1916-17 

Alfalfa  hay  

4,424 

4,144 

7  253 

4,416 

5  862 

5,773 

4,843 

Alfalfa  green  

8,111 

7,509 

3,055 

2,876 

11,705 

1,701 

1,727 

Indian  corn,  green.. 

387 

934 

194 

165 

575 

Indian    corn,    silage 

2,487 

1,125 

5,208 

4,352 

1,430 

4568 

5,287 

Sorghum  silage  

2,648 

432 

2,441 

1260 

Oat  silage  

1,575 

1,540 

Sudan  grass  silage.. 

670 

650 

Green   barley  

1,690 

Roots  

412 

879 

198 

164 

572 

Wheat  bran   

192 

Barley   

1,106 

2,157 

471 

364 

2,091 

1,711 

253 

Oats  

Milo  

437 
161 

46 
11 

29 

253 
108 

5 

Linseed  meal  

Cocoanut  meal  

117 

200 

476 

104 

377 

Dried-  beet  pulp 

692 

278 

1,036 

210 

575 

Cottonseed  meal   .... 

18 

66 

54 

Total   grain   feed .... 

3,392 

2,157 

1;222 

2,135 

3,338 

1,711 

1,456 

Average  per  day .... 

9.7 

6.4 

3.4 

7.9 

7.2 

5.4 

4.9 

Feed  units,  roughage 

3,868 

3,890 

5,042 

3,437 

5,524 

3,962 

3,867 

Feed  units,  concen- 

centrates  

3,392 

2,157 

1,222 

2,135 

3,337 

1,711 

1,456 

Total  feed  units 

7,260 

6,047 

6,264 

6,572 

8,862 

5,673 

5,323 

330  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 

production  during  subsequent  years  is  given  in  table  II.  She  was 
admitted  to  the  Advanced  Register  of  the  Holstein-Friesian  Asso- 
ciation on  the  basis  of  an  official  seven-day  record,  January  5  to  12, 
1914,  of  339.2  pounds  of  milk  and  13.540  pounds  butterfat  (A.  R.  0., 
No.  26364).  Roxey  was  of  a  blocky  build  and  was  a  poor  type  of  a 
Holstein,  in  spite  of  her  good  seven-day  record;  as  she  proved  an 
uncertain  breeder  she  was  sold  for  beef  in  December,  1917,  after  a 
lactation  period  of  only  270  days,  during  which  she  produced  7243 
pounds  of  milk  and  296.3  pounds  butterfat. 

University  Marigold,  No.  282343,  was  bred  by  the  University  of 
California  (born  September  8,  1911).  She  has  an  official  record  of 
5566  pounds  of  milk  and  319  pounds  butterfat  for  the  year  ending 
April  29,  1915  (mixed-grain  ration.  See  table  II).  She  did  not 
get  in  calf  after  freshening  August  17,  1917,  and  was  sold  for  beef 
in  April,  1918. 

The  results  presented  in  table  II  will  only  be  discussed  here  as 
regards  their  bearing  on  the  effect  of  barley  feeding  on  the  production 
of  the  cows.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  production  of  these  cows  during 
the  periods  when  barley  was  fed  as  exclusive  grain  feed  did  not  show 
a  similar  improvement  in  production  over  the  mixed  grain  periods 
as  in  the  case  of  the  grade  cow,  Hannah.  Roxey  produced  about 
18  per  cent  less  milk  and  15  per  cent  less  butterfat  during  the  barley 
periods  than  on  the  mixed  grain  rations,  the  corresponding  figures 
for  Marigold  being  19  per  cent  and  17  per  cent  less.  The  average 
daily  production  of  butterfat  during  the  barley  periods  was  9  per  cent 
and  2  per  cent  lower  than  when  mixed  grain  was  fed,  for  Roxey  and 
Marigold,  respectively. 

The  amounts  of  barley  fed  these  cows  were  considerably  smaller 
than  in  the  case  of  Hannah,  viz.,  on  the  average,  6.4  pounds  daily  for 
Roxey  and  5.4  pounds  for  Marigold,  and  the  rations  fed  during  the 
barley  periods  contained  in  both  cases  less  grain  and  less  total  feed 
materials  than  during  the  corresponding  mixed-grain  periods.  The 
decreased  dairy  production  by  the  cows  during  the  former  periods  is, 
therefore,  only  what  might  be  expected.  The  length  of  the  lactation 
periods  when  barley  was  fed  was  fully  normal  in  the  case  of  both 
cows. 

The  evidence  furnished  by  the  trials  with  these  cows  at  first  thought 
might  be  taken  to  indicate  that  the  feeding  of  barley  as  sole  grain  feed 
was  responsible  for  the  decreased  dairy  production  during  the  barley 
periods.  If  the  conditions  of  the  trials  and  the  relation  of  feed  con- 
sumption to  production  be  studied,  however,  it  will  be  readily  seen 
that  such  a  conclusion  is  not  warranted  and  that  barley  feeding  appar- 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BARLEY  ON  THE  MILK  SECRETION  OF  COWS      331 

entry  did  not  have  any  undesirable  effect  on  these  cows  any  more 
than  in  the  case  of  Hannah,  either  in  so  far  as  the  production  or  the 
health  and  thriftiness  of  the  animals  are  concerned. 

FEEDING   BARLEY  DURING   BRIEF  PERIODS 

As  previously  stated,  a  number  of  cows  in  the  University  dairy 
herd  have  been  fed  barley  as  sole  concentrate  during  brief  periods, 
mostly  five  weeks  in  each  case,  during  the  last  two  years.  It  is  of 
interest  to  determine  in  how  far  the  substitution  of  barley  for  mixed 
grain  in  the  rations  of  the  cows  affected  the  production  and  body 
weights  of  the  cows.  The  dairy  records  for  these  cows  have  therefore 
been  compiled,  the  data  for  the  weeks  when  barley  was  fed  being 
compared  with  the  averages  of  the  corresponding  preceding  and  fol- 
lowing weeks  when  mixed  grain  was  fed.  None,  or  but  slight,  changes 
occurred  in  the  kinds  or  amounts  of  roughage  fed  during  these  periods. 
The  results  of  these  compilations  are  presented  in  table  III. 

A  study  of  the  data  presented  in  the  table  will  disclose  the  fact 
that  the  amounts  of  milk  produced  on  the  barley  rations  were  higher 
than  those  produced  on  the  mixed-grain  rations  in  the  case  of  twelve 


TABLE  III 

Production  by  Cows  Fed  Barley 

or  Mixed  Grain  During  Corresponding  Periods 

Fed  barley  as 

exclusive  concentrate 

A 

Fed  mixed  grain 

A 

Name  of  cow 

Days 

from 

calving 

Lbs. 
milk 

Lbs. 
fat 

Average 

per  cent 

fat 

Body 

weierht 
lbs. 

r 

Lbs. 
milk 

Lbs. 
fat 

Average 

per  cent 

fat 

Body 

weight 

lbs. 

Korndyke 

358 

487.7 

19.04 

3.9 

1,480 

478.3 

18.58 

3.9 

1,447 

Whittle 

105 

793.8 

28.99 

3.7 

997 

763.5 

27.27 

3.6 

998 

Bess  2d 

96 

900.5 

34.53 

3.8 

1,227 

844.9 

32.41 

3.8 

1215 

Blackie 

228 

284.6 

13.62 

4.8 

1,288 

264.4 

11.48 

4.3 

1,276 

Helen 

130 

718.1 

26.48 

3.7 

1,433 

774.1 

28.66 

3.7 

1,410 

Lulu 

248 

561.5 

23.12 

4.1 

1,172 

569.7 

23.69 

4.2 

1,179 

La  Polka 

195 

539.6 

19.32 

3.6 

1,371 

528.4 

19.86 

3.8 

1,395 

Queen 

280 

610.9 

20.15 

3.3 

1,448 

649.9 

20.64 

3.2 

1,449 

Eoanee 

137 

881.2 

31.66 

3.6 

985 

800.7 

28.33 

3.5 

963 

Colantha 

293 

394.4 

13.34 

3.4 

963 

375.7 

12.50 

3.3 

948 

Peggy 

85 

1,274.2 

46.53 

3.7 

1,009 

1,241.8 

42.13 

3.4 

1,001 

Woodland 

613.2 

27.62 

4.5 

1,157 

577.0 

27.02 

4.7 

1,164 

Bess  Lass 

51 

542.6 

18.76 

3.5 

1,045 

486.9 

16.50 

3.4 

1,031 

Mermaiden 

2d 

191 

513.3 

24.13 

4.7 

791 

468.5 

20.37 

4.3 

790 

Fern 

136 

325.8 

16.93 

5.2 

941 

317.8 

16.34 

5.1 

957 

Totals  and 

averages 

181 

9,441.4 

364.22 

3.86 

1,154 

9,141.6 

345.78 

3.78 

1,148 

Difference 

+299.8 

+18.44 

+  .08 

+  6 

332  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 

cows,  and  the  lower  in  the  case  of  three  cows ;  the  amounts  of  butter- 
fat  were  higher  in  eleven  cases  and  lower  in  four  cases,  and  the  average 
body  weights  of  the  cows  were  higher  in  nine  cases  and  lower  in  six 
cases;  finally,  the  percentages  of  fat  were  higher  during  the  barley 
periods  in  nine  cases  and  lower  in  three  cases  than  during  the  mixed- 
grain  periods  (no  appreciable  change  in  three  cases).  Considering 
the  average  data  for  all  fifteen  cows,  it  will  be  seen  that  there  was  an 
increase  of  3  per  cent  in  the  total  amount  of  milk  produced,  of  5  per 
cent  in  the  amount  of  butterf  at  produced,  and  of  6  pounds  in  the  body 
weights  of  the  cows,  on  the  barley  rations  as  compared  with  the  mixed- 
grain  rations.  The  average  fat  content  of  the  milk  produced  on 
the  former  rations  was,  furthermore,  slightly  improved  (.08  per  cent) 
over  that  of  the  milk  produced  when  the  cows  were  fed  mixed  grain. 

These  average  differences  are  not  very  marked ;  only  in  the  case  of 
two  cows  was  the  milk  production  improved  by  more  than  10  per  cent 
during  the  barley  feeding  over  that  of  the  preceding  and  following 
mixed-grain  periods,  and  the  fat  production  was  increased  by  more 
than  10  per  cent  during  the  former  periods  in  the  case  of  four  cows. 
The  conclusion  might  be  justified  under  these  conditions  that  the 
slight  improvement  in  production  in  the  case  of  these  fifteen  cows 
came  as  a  result  of  substituting  barley  for  mixed  grain,  but  it  is  also 
possible,  in  fact  more  likely,  that  the  differences  in  production  observed 
may  lie  within  the  limits  of  experimental  errors  in  trials  of  this  kind, 
and  that  they  cannot  therefore  be  interpreted  to  indicate  a  higher 
nutritive  effect  of  rolled  barley  above  that  of  the  mixtures  of  standard 
concentrates  fed  to  these  cows.  Whichever  explanation  is  accepted, 
it  is  very  clear,  however,  that  the  results  of  the  last  trials  furnish 
positive  evidence  that  barley  has  no  tendency  to  decrease  the  milk 
production  of  the  cows  in  comparison  with  that  secured  by  feeding 
similar  amounts  of  common  grain  mixtures,  and  that  the  feeding  of 
barley  to  dairy  cows  is  not  accompanied  by  deleterious  effects  of  any 
kind.  Like  the  testimony  previously  presented  by  the  five-year  trial 
with  the  grade  cow,  Hannah,  and  by  the  trials  with  the  two  pure-bred 
cows,  the  results  obtained  in  these  short-period  trials  show  that  barley 
is  an  excellent  feed  for  milch  cows,  and  that  when  fed  with  alfalfa, 
or  with  alfalfa  and  silage,  the  production  of  the  cows  is  at  least  equal 
to  that  secured  on  rations  made  up  of  similar  rough  feeds  and  mix- 
tures of  standard  grain  feeds,  like  wheat  bran,  oil  meals,  beet  pulp,  etc. 

In  several  of  the  trials  reported,  somewhat  better  results  were 
obtained  during  the  barley  periods  than  when  mixed  concentrates  were 
fed ;  in  nearly  all  of  these  cases  the  total  amounts  of  feed  eaten  by 
the  cows  in  the  former  rations  were,  however,  larger  than  in  those  of 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BARLEY  ON  THE  MILK  SECRETION  OF  COWS      333 

the  latter.  The  data  secured  in  the  trials  can  hardly  be  interpreted 
to  show  that  barley  is  a  more  efficient  component  of  rations  for  dairy 
cows  than  similar  amounts  of  mixed  standard  grain  feeds ;  experience 
has  taught  dairy  farmers  that  variety  is  a  very  desirable  quality  in 
the  feed  ration,  and  tends  to  insure  a  good,  healthy  appetite,  and  a 
large  dairy  production. 

FEEDING  VALUE  OF  BARLEY 

There  is  every  reason  to  consider  barley  a  most  valuable  stock  feed. 
It  is  the  common  bread-grain  in  northern  European  countries,  and  its 
high  nutritive  value  for  man  and  beast  is  generally  recognized  there 
as  elsewhere.  It  is  one  of  the  standard  grain  feeds  for  dairy  cattle 
and  other  farm  animals  in  the  Scandinavian  countries  and  is  also  used 
as  a  feed  for  farm  stock,  including  poultry,  in  many  other  parts  of 
Europe  and  in  northern  Africa.  Barley  is  the  common  grain  fed 
to  the  Arab  horses,  among  others — a  breed  noted  for  its  vigor  and 
endurance.  Without  entering  into  a  discussion  of  the  constitution 
of  the  various  feed  components  in  the  various  cereals,  we  may  say  that 
barley  does  not  greatly  differ  from  other  cereal  grains  in  either  chem- 
ical composition,  digestibility  or  nutritive  effects,  as  will  be  seen  from 
the  following  table.  The  figures  given  in  the  table  show  that,  so  far 
as  digestible  nutrients  or  net  energy  values  are  concerned,  this  cereal 
ranks  with  Indian  corn,  rye  and  wheat. 


TABLE  IV 

Chemical  Composition,  Digestible  Nutrients,  and  Energy  Values  of  Cereal  Grains, 


Moisture 

Barley   10.8 

Indian   corn   10.6 

Oats  10.4 

Rice,  rough  9.6 

Rye    8.7 

Sorghum  grain  ....  12.7 

Wheat   10.4 


Fat 

Fiber 

Nitrogen- 
free 
extract 

Ash 

Digestible 

A 

Net 
energy 
values, 
therms 

'rotein 

r                                     > 

Carbo- 
Protein   hydrates 
and  fat 

12.0 

1.8 

4.2 

68.7 

2.5 

9.4         75.9 

89.9 

10.3 

5.0 

2.2 

70.4 

1.5 

7.8         76.5 

85.5 

11.4 

4.8 

10.8 

59.4 

3.2 

10.7         62.3 

67.6 

7.6 

1.9 

9.3 

66.7 

4.9 

4.7         68.4 

77.3 

11.3 

1.9 

1.5 

74.5 

2.1 

9.5         72.1 

93.7 

9.2 

3.4 

2.0 

70.8 

1.9 

7.5         72.0 

89.8 

12.5 

2.2 

1.8 

71.2 

1.9 

9.3         69.8 

91.7 

It  is  sound  dairy  economics  to  feed  crops  grown  on  the  farm  as 
far  as  possible.  The  expense  of  hauling,  middlemen's  profits,  etc.,  is 
thus  saved  and  one  is  largely  independent  of  fluctuating  market  con- 
ditions. The  fertilizer  value  of  barley  is  furthermore  saved  by  this 
method  of  disposing  of  the  crop  and  the  danger  of  depleting  the 
fertility  of  the  land  is  thus  decreased.    For  these  reasons,  as  well  as 


334  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 

because  of  the  fact  that  barley  has  been  shown  to  be  an  excellent  dairy 
feed,  its  use  in  rations  for  dairy  cows  is  to  be  recommended  when  its 
market  value  has  not  been  artificially  raised  through  a  demand  for  the 
crop  for  other  purposes  than  stock  feeding. 

*  The  explanation  of  the  belief  of  some  farmers  that  the  feeding  of 
barley  tends  to  dry  up  milch  cows  is  probably  to  be  sought  in  the 
fact  that  such  a  result  has  frequently  come  when  cows  have  been 
turned  out  on  barley  stubble,  or  fed  coarse  barley  hay  only,  with  no 
additional  feed.  The  amount  of  feed  they  are  thus  able  to  obtain, 
especially  on  stubble  pasture,  is  not,  as  a  rule,  likely  to  furnish 
sufficient  nutriment  for  the  maintenance  of  a  fair  dairy  production, 
and  a  decrease  in  the  milk  flow  naturally  results,  along  with  a  gradual 
drying  up  of  the  cows.  The  barley  is  blamed,  while  it  is  the  system 
of  feeding  that  is  responsible  for  the  result  observed.  Milch  cows 
producing  a  good  mess  of  milk  cannot  be  expected  to  pick  up  sufficient 
feed  to  maintain  their  production  on  barley  stubble  alone,  but  fed 
alfalfa  hay  in  addition,  or  better  still,  alfalfa  and  some  succulent  feed, 
like  silage  or  roots,  they  will  give  good  returns  for  the  feed  that  they 
find  in  the  stubble  field. 

In  view  of  the  results  and  discussions  presented  in  the  preceding, 
there  is  every  reason  to  utilize  barley  for  feeding  dairy  cows  when 
it  is  not  needed  for  human  food  and  whenever  its  price  is  not  too 
high  in  comparison  with  other  concentrates  to  make  it  an  economical 
stock  feed.  During  the  past  two  seasons  the  insufficiency  of  the  wheat 
supply  has  made  it  necessary  for  our  people  to  use  substitutes  in 
bread  making  and  for  other  household  purposes,  and  barley  was  the 
most  common  and  best  known  substitute  available.  Under  normal 
conditions  of  the  grain  market,  however,  and  when  the  attention  of 
the  civilized  nations  shall  again  be  turned  toward  peaceful  pursuits, 
the  main  market  for  barley  in  this  country  will  again  be  for  stock 
feeding,  unless  a  demand  for  brewing  barley  should  be  reopened.  In 
either  case,  barley  growers  may  look  to  our  stockmen  to  use  a  very 
large  proportion  of  their  crop,  and  it  should  be  kept  in  mind  that 
this  cereal  is  well  adapted  for  feeding  different  classes  of  farm  animals, 
including  dairy  cattle. 


*  It  is  believed  by  some  farmers  that  feeding  smutty  barley  will  tend  to  dry 
up  milch  cows.  There  is,  however,  no  definite  evidence  to  this  effect,  although  the 
danger  of  feeding  considerable  amounts  of  smutty  grain  to  any  kind  of  stock,  and 
especially  to  pregnant  females,  is  generally  recognized. 


